> On 24 Mar 2021, at 14:10, Bill Woodcock <[email protected]> wrote: > > How many mqps are necessary to have a voice in your vision of > multistakeholderism?
I don’t know. I think/hope we have the same vision of multistakeholderism. If not, that’s a conversation for another time and place. > Or, viewed from the other end of the spectrum, are you suggesting that only > the two or three largest TLDs out of two thousand, count? No, of course not. Any TLD or authoritiev server is welcome to do whatever it wants here. Even if I think it’s a bad idea. Which could very well be an incentive for others to deploy. What I am saying is this WG needs to think more about the impacts* of Do[TH] on busy authoritative servers (not just TLDs). And maybe for busy recursive servers too. Some of us were talking about that just over an hour ago in the RIPE DNS WG: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/dns/remote-sessions/2021-03-24-ripe-dns-wg-hollenbeck-balanced-dns-information-protection-strategy.pdf AFAICT the WG hasn’t yet considered any of the risk analysis issues identified in Scott’s presentation. * Those impacts BTW go beyond query rates or TLS session management.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
